[lbo-talk] Lionizing Wealthy Americans, Rather Than Taxing

[Carrol Cox]

Chris's points seem crucial. Leftists waste a lot of time trying to prove
that capitalists are "bad" people, thus making opposition to capitalism a
matter of individualist self-expression rather than a political activity.
And no one yet has said a word about Carl's Sunday post about OWS & Identity
politics. It's more fun to roll around in moral superiority to faculty or
rich capitalists than to do the political thinking that might contribute to
wiping capitalism out. I don't think it too much of an exaggeration to say
"Capitalists are not the enemy; capitalism is."

Carrol

-----Original Message-----
From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
On Behalf Of Chris Sturr
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 9:15 AM
To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Lionizing Wealthy Americans, Rather Than Taxing

------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 14:49:10 -0500
From: c b <cb31450 at gmail.com>
Subject: [lbo-talk] Lionizing Wealthy Americans, Rather Than Taxing

       Them
To: pen-l <pen-l at lists.csuchico.edu>, lbo-talk <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
Message-ID:

       <CAF490LZwN5=XATe+AmYn6vSdiLr2QAdFW8tRGw_Rwad0s-QRgQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I understand your criticism of Krugman here.  But the problem is that
determining who "earns" what they get (i.e., who *deserves* what) is not an
economic question but an ethical question.  I think our approach should be
political vs. ethical/moral,  because the ethical/moral discourse of the
day (rights, etc.) is liberal and idealist.  (That's how I interpret the
fact that Obama was able to give a speech in Kansas yesterday that was
about "fairness," and people interpreted it as picking up on the language
of Occupy--minus the anti-capitalist parts, of course!)

Here's a pretty good attempt by an economist to argue, in economic terms,
that the super-rich haven't earned what they get, but have in fact stolen
it from workers:  "The Purloined Trillions, by Jim Cypher (
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2011/0711cypher.html).  He even
takes a neoclassical economist as his starting point: "Neoclassical
economist John Bates Clark (1847-1938) first formulated what he termed the
'natural law' of income distribution which 'assigns to everyone what he has
specifically created.' That is, if markets are not 'obstructed,' pay levels
should be 'equal [to] that part of the product of industry which is
traceable to labor itself.' As productivity increased, Clark argued, wages
would rise *at an equal rate*."  Cypher's point is that that happened for a
while, but stopped happening (as we all know) in the 70s. If you look at
what would have gone to workers if Clark's "law" were true, it amounts to
trillions per year essentially stolen.

I like the argument, but it only works with some moral claim about what
people are owed, what they deserve, etc. Better to have a political account
of the balance of class power (which I'm sure Cypher would agree with
anyhow).

 CB's post:

http://www.truth-out.org/lionizing-wealthy-americans-rather-taxing-them/1323
181144

 "Even if you believe that the top 1 percent, or better yet the top
0.1 percent, are actually earning the money they make, what they
contribute is what they get, and they deserve no special solicitude."

CB: We need economists who will develop the theory that the top 1% and
.01% are not actually earning the money they make.

-- 
-- 
Chris Sturr
Co-editor, Dollars & Sense
29 Winter St.
Boston, Mass. 02108
phone:  617-447-2177, ext. 205
fax:    617-447-2179
email:  sturr at dollarsandsense.org
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk